The K-Words
Debut

(Reprinted from the issue of August 23, 2007)

Judith
Warner, defending late-term feticide in The New York
Times, complains that it could become legally risky for
doctors to use digoxin  a cardiac drug  to kill the fetus up to
one day in advance of the procedure.

Well, blow me down!
This is the first time I have ever seen anyone in the Paper of Record use the
word kill to describe what abortion does. Next thing you know,
theyll be calling those dead things babies.

Paul Is a Four-Letter Word

Speaking of taboos, the allegedly
conservative Washington Times continues to ignore the one
and only conservative seeking the Republican presidential nomination,
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. It appears as if the
Timess Bushite editor, Wesley Pruden, has banned any
mention of Paul in the papers pages.

Instead, the
Times goes on slanting the news to create the impression
that the United States is winning the war in Iraq. This is also the theme sung
by its roster of commentators.

Maybe so. Maybe the
surge is finally working! But all this ceaseless optimism is getting mighty
fishy. First Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to us because of all those
nuclear weapons; but once he was toppled, democracy was going to sprout
irresistibly across the Muslim world.

Well,
mission accomplished, and the Iraqi people voted with purpled fingers; and
time and again we were told that the turning point had finally come; just as
were being assured again today that the most formidable and
expensive military in history is at last whipping the stateless insurgents.

Only Ron Paul is
raising the most basic question of all, the one even the
anti-war Democrats wont touch, namely, Why should
we be in the Middle East in the first place? Or, to put it another way, if
we win, what on earth do we win?

Funny that we never
talk about conquest anymore. Today its known as defense.
What Happened to Our Constitution?

Regnerys Politically Incorrect Guides,
despite their coy titles, are an excellent series of correctives
to liberal propaganda. Id be tempted to call the latest, The
Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, by Kevin Gutzman, one
of the most inspired, if only the other volumes Ive seen
werent so hard to top.

How to discuss this
book without gushing superlatives? I find it even better than its advance
praise announced. Ive studied this subject for most of my adult life,
and I can hardly imagine a better book of its kind  fearless, incisive,
going straight for the intellectual jugular.

Gutzman contends
that the American judiciary, legal establishment, law schools, and media have
completely misled the public about the meaning and history of the U.S.
Constitution, substituting case law  the accumulated opinions of the
courts  for the simple truth. Flimsy precedent has
usurped the place of history, fact, reason, and even logic. So precedents
take precedence, as it were, over the actual words of the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme
Court winds up treating its own rulings  in Roe
v. Wade, for example  as more authoritative than
the Constitution itself. No wonder the public is confused: The whole system
is incoherent and  well, corrupt is a mild term for it. The Constitution
becomes whatever the courts say it is. This is a recipe for unbridled,
arbitrary power, such as we are already experiencing.

Gutzman puts his
finger on the key issue: state sovereignty. Abraham Lincoln falsely said that
the states had never been sovereign, even under the Articles of
Confederation  a lie plainly refuted by the second of the articles:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence.... Mark you that: retains! So much for
Honest Abe. (And he was honest, in little things.
Like Shakespeares Honest Iago, he saved his whoppers for large
matters.)

Unless the states
retain their sovereignty, including the ultimate right to secede, there is no
real check on federal tyranny. The whim of a Court majority
can literally mean violent death for millions. If even one state had been able
to threaten secession over Roe, the Court would never have
dared to foist such a monstrous ruling on us. Yet nobody even proposed
impeaching those who had usurped the states most basic right: the
right to protect innocence from violence.

Gutzmans
conclusion is gloomy, but I find it hard to see how he can be accused of
undue pessimism; to me it seems simple realism. I reached the same
conclusion long ago and see no way around it, no solution
except for the remote possibility that a stupid and sinful populace and its
equally depraved rulers will have a massive conversion. This is about as likely
as President Bushs suddenly speaking in Miltonic periods, Johnsonian
paragraphs, and Chestertonian epigrams.

When it comes to the
U.S. Constitution, idiocy has been institutionalized so thoroughly that any
hope for a return to reason seems like sheer fantasy. Gutzman shows that
the truth can still be known and uttered, but not that it has any hope of
prevailing in any future we can foresee.

FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and
others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. Click
here for more information.